GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 82446
  • *Latest: teslawiz

  • *Total Posts: 496623
  • *Total Topics: 14699
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 17
  • *Total: 20

Author Topic: Ring Magnet SMOT  (Read 9174 times)

Online Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2016, 02:22:26 PM »
@vineet_ Kiran

I am so glad to see that you are still at it.

OU designs require the ultimate in bullet proof, proof.

Personally I think it is possible  to accomplish what you are working on.

If you can transition your magnet array, into something like the type of array
presented in the  Thin Magnetic Ramp experiment topic  (here at OU. com.) (combine yours with it).

                       cheers
                            floor

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2016, 02:22:26 PM »

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3551
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2016, 08:20:27 PM »
In the second experiment, the ramp magnets are involved to some extent - because they are there. If he did not need that SMOT-ramp at all, he could likely removed the magnets completely and used a magnetless ramp. In that case the experiment will fail anyways.
What he should do next is not to tilt those magnets at all. Only then you can measure the energy involved for the ball to enter the SMOT. If he do not change the SMOT ramp, I am quite sure the ball will roll up that tube just as far as in the first experiment.


The experiment is not reliable. Really.


Vidar

Vidar,

You still seem to have not understood Naudin's tests. Ask yourself how the ramp magnets placed sideways to a steel ball could influence pro or con the 'just about to fall' ball??  Because the ball was deliberately placed by hand to the very edge of the ramp and carefully let it fall into the glass pipe. In this scenario the magnets have no any 'cheeting' effect pro or con: the ball was simply let fall down by its own weight after Naudin carefully put it to the very edge of the ramp. 

Please when you have a few minutes, go through the test described in this link: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm  it is very clear. It compares two potential energy levels obtained by the ball when Test 1 and Test 2 is done. One such energy for the ball is when the ball falls into the glass pipe from the output of the SMOT. The other energy level for the ball is when the ball is let freely fall into the glass pipe from the input side of the SMOT. The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp. 

Regardless of whether this setup shown by Naudin could be looped or not, your objections are not relevant.  And if you close your eyes on the obviously higher potential energy result when the ball fell from the output of the SMOT versus the one where the ball was let fall from the (180° turned) SMOT platform's input side just by normal free fall, it is up to you. 

Gyula

Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2016, 11:09:12 PM »
Vidar,

You still seem to have not understood Naudin's tests. Ask yourself how the ramp magnets placed sideways to a steel ball could influence pro or con the 'just about to fall' ball??  Because the ball was deliberately placed by hand to the very edge of the ramp and carefully let it fall into the glass pipe. In this scenario the magnets have no any 'cheeting' effect pro or con: the ball was simply let fall down by its own weight after Naudin carefully put it to the very edge of the ramp. 

Please when you have a few minutes, go through the test described in this link: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm  it is very clear. It compares two potential energy levels obtained by the ball when Test 1 and Test 2 is done. One such energy for the ball is when the ball falls into the glass pipe from the output of the SMOT. The other energy level for the ball is when the ball is let freely fall into the glass pipe from the input side of the SMOT. The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp. 

Regardless of whether this setup shown by Naudin could be looped or not, your objections are not relevant.  And if you close your eyes on the obviously higher potential energy result when the ball fell from the output of the SMOT versus the one where the ball was let fall from the (180° turned) SMOT platform's input side just by normal free fall, it is up to you. 

Gyula
"The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp."
This is where the problem occurs. This is exactly what he wants the audience to believe!
However, aside from insuring correct hight, he changes the SMOT in the second experiment, instead of letting the magnets be in the correct position all the time.
I understand that he want the audience to believe he wants to insure the correct hight, but at the same time he also fools you, by you ignoring the changes in the SMOT's magnet configuration. This change is not irrelevant. It has everything to do with the outcome.


Why?
Because the field outside the gap between the magnets are repelling the ball. Yes, repelling. This force will accelerate the ball.
This repelling field outside the gaps is stronger and has shorter range the closer the magnets are. When you increase the distance between the magnets by flipping them away 90 degrees of each other, this force weakens in both ends, and do not longer provide the same repelling force.


What you, and so many others do not (want to) understand, is that the ball would roll just as far as in the first experiment if the magnets was not flipped away in the second experiment. Remember that the repelling forces at the input is weaker, but has greater range due to the wider gap. This corresponds perfectly to the necessary input energy needed for the ball to enter the SMOT in the first place.
Increasing the gap manually from one experiment to the other, invalidates the experiment completely.


Permanent magnet carry a conservative field, and cannot by any chance provide some of its potential energy into the surroundings without loosing its own potential energy. The field must change, and to change a magnetic field you need energy input - such as rearranging the magnets by hand.


Vidar

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2016, 11:09:12 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3551
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2016, 12:43:14 AM »
"The input side is chosen to insure the same height for the free fall the ball had in test 1 when it started to go through the SMOT magnet ramp."
This is where the problem occurs. This is exactly what he wants the audience to believe!
However, aside from insuring correct hight, he changes the SMOT in the second experiment, instead of letting the magnets be in the correct position all the time.
I understand that he want the audience to believe he wants to insure the correct hight, but at the same time he also fools you, by you ignoring the changes in the SMOT's magnet configuration. This change is not irrelevant. It has everything to do with the outcome.


Why?
Because the field outside the gap between the magnets are repelling the ball. Yes, repelling. This force will accelerate the ball.
This repelling field outside the gaps is stronger and has shorter range the closer the magnets are. When you increase the distance between the magnets by flipping them away 90 degrees of each other, this force weakens in both ends, and do not longer provide the same repelling force.


What you, and so many others do not (want to) understand, is that the ball would roll just as far as in the first experiment if the magnets was not flipped away in the second experiment. Remember that the repelling forces at the input is weaker, but has greater range due to the wider gap. This corresponds perfectly to the necessary input energy needed for the ball to enter the SMOT in the first place.
Increasing the gap manually from one experiment to the other, invalidates the experiment completely.


Permanent magnet carry a conservative field, and cannot by any chance provide some of its potential energy into the surroundings without loosing its own potential energy. The field must change, and to change a magnetic field you need energy input - such as rearranging the magnets by hand.


Vidar

Vidar,

How can permanent magnets placed at least 5 cm away from the steel ball repel the steel ball?   Please explain.

Gyula

Offline vineet_kiran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2016, 02:04:27 AM »

@webby1


What if we use half little magnets on the top array or cover the right half of little magnet with a shield?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2016, 02:04:27 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2016, 08:23:01 AM »
Vidar,

How can permanent magnets placed at least 5 cm away from the steel ball repel the steel ball?   Please explain.

Gyula
A magnetic field will never stop interact with other magnetic objects no matter how far away they are. Ofcourse the interaction will weaken square to the distance.
In the experiment, as the magnets are flipped 90° outwards, it corresponds to a difference from maybe 3cm to 5cm apart, if the cross section of the magnet bars ar 1x1cm and they are initially 3cm apart at the input.
This increased distance will generally weaken the magnetic interaction by a factor of 0.36, and therfor reduce the extra push by a similar factor. So the difference in the displayed output energy of some 400-450uJoule seems reasonable, but the difference would be 0 if he just kept the magnets where they are suppose to be.
The second experiment is suppose to display the required energy input of the ball for allowing the ball to enter the SMOT input, so he should not touch those magnets at all. Flipping the magnets away in that second experiment will invalidate this due to the explanation above.


This experiment is easy to replicate, so anyone can do this same experiment correctly and prove that a SMOT will fail as a selfrunner as a closed loop.


Vidar

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3551
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2016, 01:23:20 AM »
A magnetic field will never stop interact with other magnetic objects no matter how far away they are. Ofcourse the interaction will weaken square to the distance.
In the experiment, as the magnets are flipped 90° outwards, it corresponds to a difference from maybe 3cm to 5cm apart, if the cross section of the magnet bars ar 1x1cm and they are initially 3cm apart at the input.
This increased distance will generally weaken the magnetic interaction by a factor of 0.36, and therfor reduce the extra push by a similar factor. So the difference in the displayed output energy of some 400-450uJoule seems reasonable, but the difference would be 0 if he just kept the magnets where they are suppose to be.
The second experiment is suppose to display the required energy input of the ball for allowing the ball to enter the SMOT input, so he should not touch those magnets at all. Flipping the magnets away in that second experiment will invalidate this due to the explanation above.

This experiment is easy to replicate, so anyone can do this same experiment correctly and prove that a SMOT will fail as a selfrunner as a closed loop.


Vidar

Vidar,

I understand that at the entrance of a normal SMOT gate there may be a repel force, however this is valid for the correctly positioned magnetic poles, N-S on the SMOT ramp. But Naudin flipped the magnets 90° so the repel force simply had to diminish to near zero due to the lack of the N-S attract forces ruling in the normal unflipped case.

One more thing to consider when estimating possible flux field strengths for the ball in Test 2 is that Naudin had ferrite magnets which were backed by steel keepers along the outer sides of the magnet rows, see here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm  When you flip such magnet array 90° up as Naudin did in the video, your strongly guessed numbers above surely become even less.

However, here is the catch which needs no any calculation you improvised out of thin air above.  Pure logic involved in this explanation.

It is clear a SMOT is able to move a steel ball up from point A to point B, where there is a height difference: point B is at a higher point with respect to a base line than point A, right? There is a distance between A and B horizontally of course, this is not important for this explanation.

Now if you accept that a SMOT is able to 'lift' an object from say 30 mm height to 35 mm height, then all you need to do is to realise that this object is able to cover a longer distance when going up a glass pipe after it has fallen from 35 mm versus the case when it has been dropped from only 30 mm, right?  (Notice that in case the ball falls out from a SMOT's output it can have kinetic energy too.)

No matter how small the height difference between the input and output of a SMOT ramp, the ball will always fall into the glass pipe from higher height at the SMOT output, ok?  hence the ball can always have higher potential energy when it falls from a SMOT output versus the case when you simply drop the ball from a lower height into the same glass pipe  (the lower height is equal to the height at the SMOT input wrt to the same base line referred to earlier).

Remember, I do not mean with this logical explanation what you strongly deny may be true,  i.e. that a SMOT could be arranged in a closed loop, this is not proved yet openly.  This explanation simply means for the time being that permanent magnets can do work in a SMOT setup, this you also denied in your previous mails.

Gyula

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2016, 01:23:20 AM »
Sponsored links:




Online Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2016, 02:33:43 AM »
Check out this video set

very great magnet hieght gain .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53_w4KqjIB4


  regards
          floor

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3551
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2016, 11:06:01 AM »
Check out this video set

very great magnet hieght gain .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53_w4KqjIB4


  regards
          floor

Hi Floor,

Thanks and I have followed youtube user 'gilbondfac' on several of his tests.  Here is his recent demo on this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMmqVDbScAY  you may have seen it.

Gyula   

Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2016, 03:46:30 PM »
Vidar,

I understand that at the entrance of a normal SMOT gate there may be a repel force, however this is valid for the correctly positioned magnetic poles, N-S on the SMOT ramp. But Naudin flipped the magnets 90° so the repel force simply had to diminish to near zero due to the lack of the N-S attract forces ruling in the normal unflipped case.

One more thing to consider when estimating possible flux field strengths for the ball in Test 2 is that Naudin had ferrite magnets which were backed by steel keepers along the outer sides of the magnet rows, see here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm  When you flip such magnet array 90° up as Naudin did in the video, your strongly guessed numbers above surely become even less.

However, here is the catch which needs no any calculation you improvised out of thin air above.  Pure logic involved in this explanation.

It is clear a SMOT is able to move a steel ball up from point A to point B, where there is a height difference: point B is at a higher point with respect to a base line than point A, right? There is a distance between A and B horizontally of course, this is not important for this explanation.

Now if you accept that a SMOT is able to 'lift' an object from say 30 mm height to 35 mm height, then all you need to do is to realise that this object is able to cover a longer distance when going up a glass pipe after it has fallen from 35 mm versus the case when it has been dropped from only 30 mm, right?  (Notice that in case the ball falls out from a SMOT's output it can have kinetic energy too.)

No matter how small the height difference between the input and output of a SMOT ramp, the ball will always fall into the glass pipe from higher height at the SMOT output, ok?  hence the ball can always have higher potential energy when it falls from a SMOT output versus the case when you simply drop the ball from a lower height into the same glass pipe  (the lower height is equal to the height at the SMOT input wrt to the same base line referred to earlier).

Remember, I do not mean with this logical explanation what you strongly deny may be true,  i.e. that a SMOT could be arranged in a closed loop, this is not proved yet openly.  This explanation simply means for the time being that permanent magnets can do work in a SMOT setup, this you also denied in your previous mails.

Gyula
I can partly agree with you in the first paragraph. Flipping magnets like that will not longer influence the ball the same way. But remember that the ball falls vertically and almost angular to the bar magnets. And flipping the magnets so they point S and N upwards at left and right side respectively, will therfor attract the ball instead of repelling it. I did some simulations of the situation that proves this. However, the magnets are not able to hold the weight of the ball.
What I try to explain, is that the required input energy must be measured with an unmodified SMOT. Dropping the ball like Naudin did in the second experiment, ignores the repulsion forces at the input, by adding attraction, and put the magnets further apart. That is not the correct way to do the experiment, and the ball will ofcourse roll shorter.


The ball have a gravitional potential as well as a magnetic potential in both input and output of the SMOT. The hight of the ball at the output is unchanged in both experiments, so the gravitational potential energy in the ball is unchanged. So far so good.
However, if you change the magnetic potential at the output, and keep the correct magnetic potential at the input, you will not longer measure the correct output.
I still think he should remain the SMOT unchanged in both experiments. Any change of conditions during an experiment will unddoubtedly invalidate the experiment. The ball rolls upwards with respect to gravity, but not with respect of the magnetic forces. The added potential energy the ball receive at the top of the SMOT is already added by Naudin when the ball is placed inside the SMOT input.


I think I must build this thing to show you :D


Vidar

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3551
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2016, 01:08:32 AM »
....
I still think he should remain the SMOT unchanged in both experiments. Any change of conditions during an experiment will unddoubtedly invalidate the experiment. The ball rolls upwards with respect to gravity, but not with respect of the magnetic forces.
The added potential energy the ball receive at the top of the SMOT is already added by Naudin when the ball is placed inside the SMOT input.
....

">The ball rolls upwards with respect to gravity, but not with respect of the magnetic forces."

No. The magnetic forces performed their work when the ball went through the SMOT setup, here the magnets worked against gravity this way the ball obtained a few mm extra height: this is what made the few cm longer travel in the glass pipe versus the case in the 2nd experiment.

">The added potential energy the ball receive at the top of the SMOT is already added by Naudin when the ball is placed inside the SMOT input."

No. Naudin did not add any more potential energy in the 2nd experiment he did when he placed the ball to the input of the SMOT in the 1st experiement. Potential energy Mr Hand added to the ball was the same in both experiements due to observing equal heights (this was the only reason for Naudin to turn the SMOT platform 180° to have the same height for the ball directly in front the glass pipe).

Gyula

Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2016, 08:23:14 AM »
You still forget that the SMOTs normal entrance is part of the complete cycle. Dropping the ball from the same hight after he turned the SMOT 180° is an excellent way to measure this, but then the SMOT cannot be changed to do so correctly.


In normal operation the SMOT can lift the ball via the incline because the incline is not steep, and the SMOT compensate this lift by using longer displacement and longer time. The highest potential energy of the ball, is when the ball is at the SMOTs entrance, and not when it is dropped from the end of the SMOT!
It appears that the ball has gained potential energy as it rolls up the SMOT, while it's not. What you see visually might make assumtions that the ball roll upwards, but not with respect to all the forces involved.


In case of a SMOT, the mechanism is mind boggling to watch, but it does not produce excess energy. It just appears to do so visually because the observer is only affected by gravity, and no other forces that would affect the observers perception.


You must analyze the situation from the balls perspective, not by your own visual perspective. If you do that, you can visualize a ball lifted upon a hill by Mr. Hand, providing potential energy to the ball. Let the ball roll down the hill (along the SMOT). Now, the ball has kinetic energy due to its motion. Then you loop the track back to the starting point. Now the ball must use its kinetic energy to climb the hill untill its rest at the top of the same hill it was dropped from.


I have attached a picture that visualize the balls perspective with respect to all forces involved. This drawing are apparently incorrect, because our perceptions does not involve magnetic forces - only gravity. However, a correct comparison of the forces involved.


Vidar

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3551
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2016, 11:42:32 PM »
You still forget that the SMOTs normal entrance is part of the complete cycle. Dropping the ball from the same hight after he turned the SMOT 180° is an excellent way to measure this, but then the SMOT cannot be changed to do so correctly.....

Vidar, the SMOT shown by Naudin can be changed after the ball left the output of the SMOT like Naudin changed it because the effect of the change on the ball's energy level (either repulsion or attraction) is extremely small, practically it can be fully neglected in his shown setup.
This is because the order of influence must have been in the femto or picoJoule range due to the 90° flipped ceramic magnets  and the actual distances involved while Naudin measured the potential energy levels in the few milliJoule range in his tests ( http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm ).

Regarding SMOTs that are built with strong Neo magnets, the influence of the stronger fields on the ball after it leaves the SMOT output may be higher than with ceramic magnets, this may or may not manifest in the distance covered by the ball in the glass pipe, so I do not fully reject this with Neo magnets on the SMOT ramp.

But I still do not think though that the stronger magnetic fields from the Neo magnets would change the game i.e. the ball would not cover higher rolling distance in the glass pipe when it falls down from  higher height at the SMOT output versus the case when the ball is simply dropped into the same pipe from the lower height the SMOT has at its entrance.

Vidar, whatever you write on the SMOT that it does not lift an object (i.e. a ball for instance) to a higher height (hence insuring higher potential energy for it at its output versus its input), whatever fancy drawings you make on the potential energy, these do not change experimental results what for instance Naudin showed with his higher potential energy findings for the ball after going through the SMOT. Your drawing comes from your imagination while his findings come from practical measurement. 

Gyula

EDIT  This is the correct link for the energy measurements: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm  what I gave above it shows the magnet arrays for the SMOT.

Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2016, 12:04:49 AM »
Quote
This is because the order of influence must have been in the femto or picoJoule range due to the 90° flipped ceramic magnets[/size]
This is true only if the ball escape the 180° experiment in the same direction as the alignment of the magnets. However, the ball does not. It falls stright down.


Vidar

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3551
Re: Ring Magnet SMOT
« Reply #29 on: September 25, 2016, 12:34:32 AM »
This is true only if the ball escape the 180° experiment in the same direction as the alignment of the magnets. However, the ball does not. It falls stright down.


Vidar

Well, not correct because if you base this statement on your simulation shown in your reply #31 above, then you did not include the thick iron plates that were backing the long row of ceramic magnets on their outer side all the way, see here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot1jln.htm 
And both iron plates faced downwards after Naudin flipped the magnet array 90°, right? Notice that the thickness of those iron plates were almost as thick as the magnets thickness, see the picture at the very bottom, SMOT v1.01

Gyula

 

OneLink